GURDIAL SINGH Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed by this suit for possession of the land in dispute which originally was owned by Rura Singh, deceased on the basis of a Will as well as being the son of he pre-deceased, daughter of the testator. The respondents denied the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased and also the validity of the Will. They further pleaded that Rura Singh was not the owner of the land in dispute at the time of his death which he had given in exchange to them in lieu of their land situate at village Kohla Majra, tehsil Rajpura. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and its judgment affirmed on appeal by the learned Additional. District Judge which led to the filing of this Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) Although both the Courts rejected the Will set up by the plaintiff, but that is of no consequence because the plaintiff was held to be the son of the pre-deceased daughter of Rura Singh, which finding was never challenged in the lower Appellate Court. Therefore, the sole controversy between the parties is centered around the issue as to whether Rura Singh gave the land in dispute in exchange to the defendants in lieu of their land situate at village kohla Majra.

(3.) The respondents, to prove the exchange, produced Exhibit R-1 executed by Rura Singh, deceased, wherein it was stated that he had given the land in dispute in exchange to them and Exhibit D.1, the copy of the application submitted by Rura Singh to the Consolidation Officer requesting that the possession of the land in dispute be delivered to the respondents in view of he said exchange. They also relied on the entries in the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawris showing their possession over the land in dispute and of the plaintiff over the land in dispute and of the plaintiff over the land given in exchange by them to Rura Singh. The contention raised by he appellant to assail the validity of the exchange was that the document, Exhibit R-1, being an Exchange Deed was compulsorily registrable and having been not registered was inadmissible in evidence. It was further contended that once the Exchange Deed was inadmissible in evidence, no oral or other evidence would be admissible to prove the alleged exchange. The trial Court rejected the contention holding that the deed, Exhibit R-1, was a record of the part transaction and, therefore, not compulsorily registrable. It was further observed that even if Exhibit R-1, was held to be compulsorily registrable, the respondents were entitled to defend their possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act being inapplicable in the erstwhile State of Pepsu, there was no bar for effecting an oral exchange, which had been amply proved from the evidence referred to above. As regards document, Exhibit R-1, very queer observation was made that it being duly stamped could be used for corroborating the oral exchange, as deposed to by the D Ws. The approach of both the Courts below was wholly erroneous and unwarranted by law.